Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. He was Deputy Assistant US Treasury Secretary during the Clinton Administration, where he was heavily involved in budget and trade negotiations. His role in designing the bailout of Mexico during the 1994 peso crisis placed him at the forefront of Latin America’s transformation into a region of open economies, and cemented his stature as a leading voice in economic-policy debates.

I writer by the name of Fredrik deBoer wrote the following about Delong in Current Affairs.

"I have a particular individual who should step right up to the plate: J. Bradford DeLong, Clinton apologist, hippie puncher, and relentless enemy of the well-being of America’s uneducated labor force. As a professor of Economics at UC-Berkeley, DeLong is paid $135K a year. (As a public employee, DeLong’s salary is a matter of public record.) Couldn’t his job be performed by some of the self-same Chinese workers that he has such deep concern for? It’s not like there aren’t a lot of talented Chinese workers with degrees in economics. Let’s be generous and assume that those Chinese workers could only perform his job at 80% of his value. If you’re UC-Berkeley, and you could hire five Chinese people with MAs in economics at $20k, have them teach the three classes he probably teaches in a year via Skype, publish some research, and attack commies and poor people on his blog, all while pocketing the extra $35K? Those five Chinese people would make about two and a half times the median Chinese income for that kind of money, after all. Wouldn’t you take that deal at 80% of the quality? And wouldn’t Brad’s own moral compass insist that you were morally obligated to do so? (If you’re worried for ol’ Brad, don’t be: tenured economics professors always have side hustles, doing “consulting” work that typically pays more in a day than your average destitute former factory worker on food stamps makes in a month. He’ll be just fine.)

But let me finish with a familiar question: is there a way to interpret DeLong’s refusal to outsource his job to China other than as a call to keep China a society of poor subsistence rice farmers as long as possible—keep them poor, barefoot, uneducated, and by no means allow them to work at any of the high-value professor of economics and anti-poor class warrior occupations we want to keep in the United States?"

The devolution from republic to dictatorship was completed when Harry Truman was delegated the power to declare nuclear war by the Congress following WWII. The power of one person to declare and order nuclear holocaust, with the resultant death of most Americans irrespective of so called "enemy target" due to radiological damage, nuclear autumn, and other consequences was the embrace of the Hitlerian concept that "total war" is just, and reflected in such slogans as "better dead than red", eviscerated any moral distinction clinging to the shrouds of the Constitutional republic. It has continued unabated since and has been embraced by "both" parties. The fact the American people are so morally inept as to accept that confirms that "when liberty dies in the hearts of the people, no Constitution can save it. $1.7 Trillion (latest estimate of what USA will spend to build "more and more usable nukes") when recent science indicates 100 of USA's current nukes is sufficient to destroy human "civilization" worldwide belies any pretense of a republic. Especially given the craven "Continuation of Government" plans whereby the US plans to "save" 5,000 government workers while abandoning its citizens in the event of nuclear war. Government created the DOI to "preserve" the inalienable rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" has devolved into a government showing its true colors: dedicated to its own survival and the people be damned. The chains of the Constitution have eroded into dust, the rest is soon to follow.

This article is partisan trash masquerading as objective truth. Brad knows as well as anyone that presidents have been over extending executive power long before Trump. Barrack Obama shut out the GOP from the political process from the outset of his administration and Trump is what he reaped. Look at all the closed rules. No amendments from the opposition and no input. Trump and the GOP Congress may very well receive the same result if they continue down this path too. But let's not pretend this began with Trump. Brad never complained about how the opposition party was treated in 2009-2011 because he agreed with their agenda which makes this article so disingenuous. It's like the GOP complaining about all the debt increases by Barrack Obama and then doing the same thing when they returned to power. Hard to take this article seriously

Seems harsh to me. Trump has gone further than his predecessors in pushing Presidential power. To think that he even voices the possibility of pardoning himself! That's amazing. And when you look at the way he treats so-called allies like Canada, citing national security in justifying his tariffs, it's not hard to see that the US has a problem in its leader's misguided self-interestedness. The fact that more than 40% of Americans seem to think that this guy is doing a reasonable job is a serious concern. The factionalism that Madison warned against has never been so obvious in modern day America as it is today.

Regarding the emergence of irrational leadership and decision making, I suspect that no system of governance can prevent its emergence as it arises from conditions in the polity. Those conditions can be avoided or ameliorated but otherwise the promotion of compulsive/irrational decision making as means to break the bonds of inaction is the functional escape valve in collective decision making.

J. Bradford DeLong delves into the history of America’s fledgling republic and highlights the fears of the Founding Fathers – emotion, corruption and factionalism that plagued democracy in ancient Greece and Rome. James Madison “warned his fellow countrymen that their chosen system of governance would only survive if they adhered to the principles of representation and kept factionalism in check.” Today under Trump, “these two conditions are no longer being met.” In fact Trump is the embodiment of the tyrant, the mad King George III of England, the Framers had in mind. The “republican democracy” was in their eyes “the best form of government.” They rejected the Athenian-style accountability mechanism, even though its checks might have been institutionalised. In 2016 Trump took a page out of the Athenian playbook, which relied on open popular votes and could turn into theatres where skilled orators sought to manipulate collective emotion and bend the law. The Founding Fathers feared that if they subjected statesmen directly to the popular will on a regular basis, mob fury would destroy their harmonious republic, and the tyranny of the majority could rule unchecked. Instead of using regular, showy public examinations, the Framers tried to restrain the abuse of power more subtly, with a delicately balanced system of checks between separate branches of government and a genteel pact of informal restraints. Some Americans had naively believed that Trump would unite and heal a divided country once in office. He vowed that people would rule again, after delivering them from the hated establishment and draining the “swamp” in Washington. He always claimed that he and only he represents the real people and the others do not count. All opposition is illegitimate and anyone opposing him is the “enemy of the people.” Factionalism is Trump’s divide-and-conquer strategy that aims to polarise the country, in order to secure power. Trump had pledged in his oath “to preserve, protect and defend” the 1787 Constitution, whose point was to prevent a president from acting with the impunity of a tyrant. One would have thought that the document was crafted with almost mathematical precision, constructing a near-perfect equilibrium of checks and balances – offered protection against abuses and perils.But Trump has been flouting rules and laws without consequences. Critics say much of what keeps a democracy intact is not enshrined in the written letter of a Constitution, but resides instead in customs and conventions – norms – that are essential to civic wellbeing. Trump had trampled all over them as a candidate, like refusing to release his tax returns and has trampled over even more as president. He did not divest himself of private business to prevent a conflict of interest. In the absence of a law explicitly forcing him to do so, he did what was not forbidden – appointing unqualified relatives to senior jobs and firing James Comey for no legitimate reasons. Alexander Hamilton believed the new US Constitution would prevent the extremes of tyranny and anarchy: “The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior; the representation of the people in the legislature.” These, he wrote, “are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided.”The Founding Fathers and fellow Framers of the Constitution would be turning in their graves if they saw how the spineless Republicans in Congress refused to move against Trump lest they drew the wrath of his base. This was a fatal oversight, as the Founding Fathers did not expect a partisanship so intense it would blind congressional Republicans to the nation’s interest – prompting them to put party ahead of country. Madison, Hamilton et al did not conceive of a force like today’s GOP, willing to indulge a president blatantly hostile to ideals and values Americans once held sacred. The author says for “republican democracy” to remain the “best form” of government, there must be a revival of “prudent, informed representation and the transcendence of factionalism.” As long as Trump is in office, this will unlikely happen. The malaise will take a toll on the GOP’s political future, suffering possible setbacks in the November mid-term elections. If Democrats do their homework right, they can the torchbearer of America’s future.

The internment of Japanese-Americans from the west coast was a wartime executive action upheld by the Supreme Court (as opposed to the ethnic cleansing of Cherokee land), not the action of a legislative majority. It was opposed by the FBI (who did not consider them a security threat), but actively pushed by then Californian Attorney General and later Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren.

The undoubted popularity of internment was probably less due to wartime paranoia than the eagerness of their west-coast neighbors to confiscate Japanese-Americans' property.

i believe the author should consider the observations of de tocqueville. after all, hamilton was merely effecting to implement a long-term military power, which he managed to do successfully. he cared about little else but that and creating a neophyte corporate capitalism based on weapons production. let's be real. but the question about royalty vs. republicanism is essentially moot since there had never been a comparably rapacious populace in europe. yes, de tocqueville summed it up about what made america different. universal greed as a driving force. have a nice day!

As DeLong wrings his hands, California has begun to treat the problem by introducing open primaries, which require candidates to face the entire electorate at every stage of the electoral process. The result is less scope for manipulation by fringe candidates.

Brad thinks California is some sort of paradise. For his class of cosmopolitan exploiters it probably is. For everyone else, it is a failure.

California is the apogee of the alliance of identity politics and neoliberalism. Of course, Brad loves it. Infinite greed and infinite virtue signaling combined into one state. Cheap labor and cheap identity politics in one package.

The truth about California is grim, for all but the Brad DeLong class.

1. Poverty – California has the highest poverty rate in the nation according to the Census. See “TRUE: California has the nation’s highest poverty rate, when factoring in cost-of-living” (http://www.politifact.com/c.... For another source, see “California Or Texas, Which State Has A Lower Poverty Rate?”. The numbers are easy. The poverty rate in California is 20.4%. Texas 14.7%.

2. Schools - California schools are rock-bottom. The only state California consistently betters is Mississippi (“Thank God for Mississippi”). See also “California's decade of gains on this test just ended”.

3. Inequality - Overall, California is consistently, the 5th or 6th least equal state in the nation. See “List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient” and “The Increasingly Unequal States of America”. Of course, California makes up for high inequality with low incomes. See “New State-Level Price Data Shows Smaller State Real Income Differences”. California actually ranks below Mississippi in real income per person (but at least the schools are better than Mississippi).

5.Welfare - California is the welfare capital of America (34% of welfare recipients, 12% of U.S. population). See “Is California the welfare capital?” for the details.

The reality is that California is a failed state. If America goes the way of California, America will be a failed nation (which it already is in some respects.Of course, California is a paradise for left-wing billionaries. Unlimited riches (and unlimited preening) for the elite. Misery for everyone else. Of course, Brad loves it."Let Me Eat Cake" is his motto.

Your premise is flawed because we do not have "enlightened statesmen". That is why we have Trump. It is more accurate to say our statesmen do not understand trade or the purpose of a country, suffer from group-think, believe their ignorance is a virtue, and are bigoted towards anyone who disagrees with them which prevents them from breaking free of group-think and ignorance.

R.P. : As a non-American and as a N.Amrican resident, I admire American "civilization" boen out of Enlightenment century ideas. But you cant have enlightened leaders all the time any where in tge world. We can only hope self correction as we march in time! Great visionaries and leaders who founded modern Indian political frame work inspired by US, to some extent, in India are hijacked by thick headed populist thuggish politicians. So This phenomena appears to be quite common everywhere😊. So let us wait and see!